Central issue in suit over house is fair contract

The story that ran in the May 2
Madison Eagle, "Appeal panel to hear disputed
house sale" by Rick Hartten, inadvertently left out some key facts
regarding the situation between Robert Chapman, my father-in-law
James Tranberg, and myself.

* On or about the first week in September
2001, my in-laws, Ruth and James Tranberg, and I met with Mr.
Chapman regarding an ad we had seen in the local paper for the sale
of his home, located at 23 Greenwood Ave. in Madison.

* I informed Mr. Chapman that the house was
for my in-laws, Mr. and Mrs. James Tranberg. Mr. Tranberg is
recently retired after 40 years with the East Orange Fire
Department. They wanted to live closer to their daughter and
grandchild. I asked Mr. Chapman for some time to gather estimates
for renovating the house.

* After consulting with a contractor and
looking at other alternatives for the property, I again met with
Mr. Chapman. I informed Mr. Chapman that I felt the cost for
renovating the house would be prohibitive.

I told Mr. Chapman that if we were to enter
into a contract, that I planned to enter into a joint venture with
my in-laws and was going to raze the structure and replace it with
a two-family residence, which is permitted in the zone where the
property is located.

* A contract was entered into between the
parties, without any contingencies for the sale and purchase of the
structure.

* On Friday, Sept. 21, 2001, Day Two of
attorney review, both attorneys reviewed the contract and exchanged
mutual letters as to the contract being acceptable to the
parties.

* Both letters included statements to the
effect that "attorney review is complete" as of Sept. 21,
2001.

* During the discovery process in our
lawsuit, we learned that after our contract was signed, an offer
was presented to Mr. Chapman for $500 over our contract price. Mr.
Chapman rejected this offer.

* On Monday, Sept. 24, 2001 - what would
have been the third day of attorney review, had the contract not
been mutually accepted and confirmed by both attorneys the
preceding Friday - another offer was made to Mr.
Chapman.

We later learned it was for approximately
$10,000 more than our contract amount.

* At 4:50 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 24, 2001,
Mr. Chapman delivered to my attorney's office a letter from his
attorney, opting out of our contract in favor of the third-party
contract. He claimed he was opting out under the three-day attorney
review clause.

The primary issue in the case is not our
wanting to do away with the three-day attorney review clause in
real estate contracts, as your paper reported.

The issue is: Once a person brings a
contract to his or her attorney who reviews it with his client and
who then writes to the other party's attorney that the contract has
been reviewed, is acceptable, and that attorney review is complete
as of that date, whether the letter of the attorney thereby
shortens the review period.

To us, that is the intent of the attorney
review clause. We feel it was not created to allow a person to
accept an offer, complete attorney review, and then entertain
higher offers while buyers think that they have a
contract.

If the first letter that my attorney
received from Mr. Chapman's simply stated the contract was
unacceptable to him, he wished to leave it open for the full three
days to entertain other offers, or had he not had a review letter
sent at all, I would agree the three days should run.

This, however, is not what occurred. We feel
that this matter is important, not only to our families personally,
but to all people who may be buying or selling real estate. People
are entitled to have their contracts honored.

I invite the Madison Eagle to review the
legal briefs, and all the public record regarding this case before
further reporting on the story. My father-in-law and I only want a
"fair shake" in this matter, and although your article was
informative, we felt that the key underlying facts, as well as the
central legal issue, were not clearly set forth.

SAMUEL ROMANO

Park Avenue

Madison

(Editor's Note: In litigation
brought by the letter writer over the disputed house sale, state
Superior Court Judge Kenneth McKenzie in Morristown ruled on Feb. 4
in Chapman's favor, finding sellers have three days by law in which
to back out of a contract, for any reason. The letter writer is
appealing that decision to the Appellate
Division.)

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Be Yourself. We do not accept and will not approve
anonymous comments. If your username is not your name, please sign
your posts as you would a letter to the editor with your full name
and hometown.Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.